DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2490
WJH
Docket No: 5523-11
4 Jan 2012
This is in reference to your application for correction of naval
record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 4 January 2012. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with the administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by the Chief of Naval Personnel
letter 4650 Ser N130C/11U0948 of 26 Oct 2011, a copy of which is
attached and was previously furnished to you.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this connection the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
There is no evidence to support your claim that you were
retained on active duty over your objection back in 2001. You
have not submitted a copy of your orders. You have stated that
you “do not recall” whether you received a “separate set of
orders.” You have not substantiated your claim.
The Board also notes that under the rules governing this Board,
an application for a correction of a naval record must be made
within 3 years of the alleged error or injustice. Failure to
file a timely application may be excused only in cases where the
Board finds that it is in the interests of justice to do so.
This common-sense standard exists because delay in asserting a
Docket No: 5523-11
claim can cause prejudice to the Navy's ability to fairly
adjudicate the claim. Over time, memories fade, policies
change, people move and records are lost or destroyed. A claim
should not be allowed when information necessary to fairly
adjudicate the claim has been lost due to the excessive passage
of time. According to your application, you were schedule for
release from active duty in 2001. You could have identified any
problem with stop loss pay years ago. Perhaps, if you had done
so, your entitlement could have been more easily determined.
The inability to corroborate your claim is directly related to
the tardiness of your claim. In the Board’s view, you should
bear the consequences of your own inaction. Under these
circumstances, the Board determined that no relief is warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this regard, it is also important to keep in mind
that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an
official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
Sincerely,
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04343-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 2010. Because of your neglect, the impact that the ADSD and PEBD error had on the probability of earlier advancement becomes highly speculative. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05523-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 August 2002. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02904-10
Under the rules governing this Board, an application for a correction of a naval record must be made within three years after the discovery of the alleged error. And no application for correction was received by this Board until March 2010. Review of the available records in your case has revealed that, due to the passage of time, much of the documentation pertaining to the prior adjudication of your claims for reimbursement no longer exists. Under these circumstances, the Board found that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05523-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2011. However, the Board concluded that your RE-4 reentry code should not be changed due to your failure to disclose your psychiatric history and diagnosed personality disorder. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05523-07
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 31 August 1990, you were so discharged. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00451-01
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. This provision allows a member section 741(d) (3) only We recommend Lieutena 3. transferring to the IRR i FY-02 Naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04534-01
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official In this records. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure : DEPART h&ADQUARTERS QUANT M ENT OF THE NAVY UN 3280 I CO ITED STATES RUSSELL ROAD I RG I N I A , V 22 134 CORP S MAR -5 I NE 103 : REPLY REFER TO I N 1610 MMER/PERB 2001 ; JON 1 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: Encl: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07121-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. In her statement appended to reference (a), the petitioner has merely furnished a second rebuttal to this already properly and completely adjudicated evaluation. In his Section C comments, the Reporting Senior '98 exercise and stated her immediate senior qualified his statements regarding the petitioner's...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09316 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2012. On 16 September 2002 you requested to be administratively separated rather be tried by court-martial for 148 days of UA and agreed to accept an other than honorable discharge (OTH). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02142-01
Every selection board considers a group of highly This process inevitably results in a Candidates are often not aware that members participating on 4. a selection board as a voting member, recorder, or affiliated with the selection board process'in any way, are prohibited from discussing why one particular individual is/was selected over another. The proceedings of selection boards are confidential counseling of failed to Subj: OMMENDATION IN CASE OF PNC(SW) The Deputy Chief of Naval...